Perhaps now that this has been made public, there will be some harsh consequences for this so-called judge. Better late than never. And I have a feeling that many judges in Israel are not qualified for the job in the first place.

Sadly, sexist machismo is the rule at all levels of Israeli society - witness not only these judges but the high officials (including a President) indicted for rape and sexual assault. Daily male discourse assigns women one role: sex objects. Israel is miles ahead of the Arab countries on such matters, but it still has a Levantine outlook.

Justice in Israel stinks!

A fish smells from the head.

when judges can say the dumbest things that controvert normalcy in a state once known for its even headedness something is wrong with the educational system.

Why is the judge under scrutiny? Every act may be sexual in nature. The question is: Did it harm the child? Was she raped? How did he get to her breast?

should learn to keep abreast with modern norms.

The judge is under scrutiny because he is an arrogant, sadistic pervert with no conscience. YES, the child was harmed. Don't think for a moment that she will not carry these pedophilic attacks on her body and soul for the rest of her life.

The last sentance should be read & fully understood: The ombudsman sees fit to add that the facts, including the statement attributed to the judge, are not accurate and do no reflect reality." The ombudsman does an excellent job in Israel, and wouldn't make such a statement unless it's appropriate to do so. Accordingly, many of these comments don't reflect reality. Wait first until the 'facts' can be clarified otherwise we're acting no better than medieval witch hunters.

This would be considered a low-grade sexual assault in the United States. He would be put on a sex-offender list the rest of his life. This may seem extreme but it helps track the people who commit these types of crimes.

the perpetrator, the judge, the so-called ombudsman, the entire system.

1) Why is the judge arrogant, sadistic with no conscience? Explain please on what you base it. 2) "Yes the child was harmed!" How do you know that for sure? She might have been. She might not have been. I asked the question: Was she raped? How did he get to her breast? How old was her relative? 2 years old 3? 4 months? We are all ready to judge, aren't we? Not for ONE moment do I condone rape but when we begin to consider "girls" 12 and older as a "child" and boys 13 and older as boys, we have lost our Jewish knowledge and soul. We are not Pedosexuals just because we are real Jews. Do you get my point, Devorah?

What do you mean by - "did it harm the child?" - do you mean to say that the relative is allow to lick child wherever he wants as far as he is not harming her physically? Sick way of thinking (you and judge the same). Harm can be phycological also. That girl is going to carry it all her life. We still don't know how it is going to effect her in long future.

1. The judge is arrogant, sadistic and with no conscience based on his comment, "So what if he licks her." Absolutely no compassion for this girl. What more do you need? I pray he is thrown off the bench. 2. Israeli 2, I have professional experience in law enforcement and criminology, and I can tell you, without hesitation, that this girl suffered some degree of harm. If it does not affect her now, it will show its ugly face at some point in her life. 3. If he was a child who didn't know any better, the father's case would not have been heard by the court. 4. I get your point on a religious basis, but legal accountability must never be thrown out the window. We are Jews, not Muslims.

Unless the relative was sucking the poison of a spider or snake (which according to this article was not the case) then it most definitely is sexual harrassment. Something tells me you've been doing some inappropriate licking and need to be turned in pronto!

"In his decision, the judge states that the police did not find evidence to support the complainant's claim about the relative's behavior and that having heard both sides he himself could not find a basis for this claim," the ombudsman said in a statement. How old is the relative? 2 years, 3? It was not mentioned in the article. Was the relative male or female? Does that matter?

The article said the judge has retired - hence he cant be "thrown off the bench". Now were did you say you had received all this experience in law enforcement?

The evidence presented is hearsay and, therefore, cannot be proven. It is the word of the father (and possibly the child) against the word of the relative. I addressed the issue of age. Gender is moot. But the issue here is the judge's reaction to the little girl being violated.